A glimpse into the mind of a wokester

A CRT adherent attempts to defend CRT.

Yesterday I watched an interesting panel discussion on Critical Race Theory, hosted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Jamil Jivani. Although Jivani had earlier put out an open invitation in the Toronto Sun to CRT proponents to take part in a conversation about the ideology, only one took him up on the offer.

What you need to know about CRT

There were five panellists on the anti-CRT side, plus the moderator, Jivani. All of them were non-white, while the lone CRT proponent, Dave Meslin, is white. In the context of a discussion of CRT, which insists that the perspectives of non-white people be centred, the dynamic of a white man opposing six brown and black people was ironic.

My general impression was that all of the anti-CRT panellists were calm, composed, articulate, rational, objective, and factual, while Meslin was emotional, anecdote-based, defensive, agitated, and disingenuous. He did not, to me, make a convincing case for CRT, although I encourage you to watch the discussion and judge for yourself. I want to dissect some of his remarks as I found them very interesting.

---

Meslin begins with a response to a question from Jivani: Why did you respond to the challenge to take part in this conversation, and what do you think are the merits of CRT?

Meslin gives two reasons for his participation: one, we see a lot of echo chambers in politics. Secondly, he didn’t want to give an opportunity for anyone to say that no one can defend CRT. Direct quote: “Of course I can defend CRT, effortlessly.”

He does not answer the question about the merits of CRT, but tells the story of how he came to believe it. He grew up in the 70s and 80s where he was taught that we were a “post-racist world” and to be “colour-blind” and not judge anyone by the way they look.

Although this sounded nice, he saw things that to him did not fit the story. He lived in an almost exclusively white neighbourhood. But when he got on the bus, it was full of black people, and he wondered where they came from. He allegedly was living in a post-racist world, but there were white and black neighbourhoods, and the black neighbourhoods were poorer. He started to see data about disproportionate outcomes, for example blacks greatly outnumbering whites in the prison system.

In the 90s and 2000s the discussion started to change, but only in academic and activist circles. He attended workshops about “white privilege”. He was fascinated, but initially defensive. But the more he learned, he found it to be a helpful framing to understand the world that had been so confusing to him as a child. He started to hear people talk about their “lived experiences” of being black, and he wanted to learn more.

---

My reaction: First, I commend Meslin for questioning what he was taught, and having enough compassion to try to understand other peoples’ experiences. Secondly, I completely identify with his story, having gone through a very similar process myself.

However, his anecdotes do not answer some fundamental questions: is racism the only, or the main, cause of the disparities he observed? Is CRT an accurate description of the cause of these disparities? And, does CRT provide effective prescriptions for remedying them?

Although Meslin is extremely anti-religious, as we’ll see, his story sounds much like a religious conversion, and his beliefs more like religious conviction than logical conclusions. In his telling, he stumbled along not being able to make sense of the world, but then he heard the “good news” of CRT, saw the light, and became “woke”.

He says:

[T]his way of thinking [CRT] has become incredibly mainstream. It’s not considered controversial, at all, and I guess one thing I’ve been trying to figure out is, where is the backlash coming from? Why are people so angry, being asleep, being ignorant, and I’m very happy to be woke. And one of the main pushes against wokeness, against CRT, against all this, seems to be coming from a kind of conservative, right, often evangelical segment of the population that doesn’t like all the stuff that’s happened in the last twenty years. Same-sex marriage, trans rights, abortion. And I really believe in separation of church and state, I’m very proud of all the changes we’ve gone through as a society, and I’m very proud to stand up and defend those changes, and I don’t want to see us lose ground, on any of those things.

His perception of CRT as mainstream and uncontroversial seems to be a result of the very echo chambers he referred to earlier. It would certainly be “mainstream” in his circles, as he is described as a “community organizer and activist”. However, only a small minority of the general population are CRT adherents. The majority of everyday Canadians, especially rural and working-class, do not hold these ideas.

Another effect to consider is the self-silencing of people in institutions where CRT is the reigning ideology. Although they may disagree, they do not risk speaking out as they know it will result in discipline, firing, cancellation, and ostracization.

Secondly, Meslin’s bigotry shows. He characterizes CRT opponents as “angry”, “asleep”, and “ignorant”. They are “conservative”, “right”, and “evangelical”. They are bigots who want to undo what he sees as the “progress” society has made.

First he claims that CRT is not controversial, then he says there is “backlash”. So which is it?

What I think he’s really saying is that this worldview is held by all the right people, all the people who matter, progressives like him. It’s not controversial any more than the earth being round is controversial. Only ignorant hicks believe otherwise.

Thirdly, I believe his remarks about societal progress reveal his true motivations.

Meslin thinks that things like same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and abortion are positive goods. But I believe that deep down, he knows that those things stand on slippery ground.

Society, culture, and its laws must be based on a belief system to have validity. Our culture’s values and its laws used to be based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, as revealed in the Bible. That belief system has been constantly eroded over the past 50 years or so, which has allowed progressives like Meslin to advance their agenda. But their agenda needs a replacement belief system to give it legitimacy, and he sees that system as CRT. An attack on CRT is an attack on his sacred cows, and if it’s proven untrue, or overthrown, the “advances” made in its name may also be taken away, and he is terrified of that. CRT is necessary to establish and maintain progressive hegemony.

Finally, his comment about “separation of church and state” implies that religious people should not have a political voice. If you are a Christian, your opinions about issues like homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion must not influence our culture or our laws.

---

Meslin’s second set of remarks respond to panelist Sonia Orlu, who noted that she is not conservative, evangelical, or white, debunking his assertion that opposition to CRT comes only from these groups.

Rather than ceding the point, Meslin doubles down.

In terms of where I see the loudest voices coming out, on average, on social media against CRT, it is coming from groups and individuals that, in the majority, are associated with the far right, with evangelical Christianity, and a lot of shit that I’m really opposed to and scared of and and frightful [sic] for. And I feel that those are forces trying to take us back on a whole range of issues, including LGBT and abortion rights. So, of course I’m not saying that every person who is against CRT is involved with that, but there is a definite correlation there, and I’m not gonna back down from that, because it’s very clear to see all across the States and including some of the [unintelligible].

Again, Meslin’s bigotry shows, as well as his defensiveness and inability to learn from even the people whose perspectives his ideology tells him he should prioritize. He resorts to a typical progressive tactic: rather than discussing the issues, he smears his opponents with insults, such as “far right”.

Jivani cites another example: Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, who is a liberal, but does not agree with the concept of systemic racism.

Meslin triples down, again refusing to concede the point:

Yeah, again, I would say that you’re cherrypicking, so, you know, if you googled anything that’s anti-CRT, like, did a Google search, and tried to find the most-watched videos and the loudest voices against it, it would most likely be people who have also rallied against a lot of other progressive reforms over the last 10-20 years. We could try it right now, live, as an experiment. So if you find a few other examples, that’s great, good for you. I’ll also point out that Legault in Quebec only got a majority because of first-past-the-post, the majority of Quebec didn’t vote for him.

Meslin’s response to being backed into a corner is to accuse the other panelists of cherrypicking. He again uses the ad hominem fallacy or guilt by association, pointing out that many people who oppose CRT also oppose other things he thinks are good. He makes a totally irrelevant point about how Legault won the recent election, rather than addressing the salient point, which is that he is a liberal who does not hold to CRT.

But this is all a distraction—I’m not sure I understand how this is relevant to the question of whether CRT is a helpful lens to use to understand the world, and to improve ourselves. You had asked me why I accepted the invitation, I gave you one of my reasons, which that when I see viral videos against CRT, it is coming from platforms that also espouse values that I find kind of gross, kind of outdated, kind of hurtful, kind of hateful. So that’s just what I’m seeing on the internet. Obviously I’m not equating the two. But in terms of the reasons I use personally to defend it, I stand by those.

This is astonishing. Meslin states that the question of who opposes CRT is an irrelevant distraction, when he is the one who brought it up. He continues his insults of CRT opponents; now they hold values that are “gross”, “outdated”, “hurtful”, and “hateful”.

He continues to fail to provide any sort of coherent explanation of what CRT is or defense of its merits.

Something Sonia mentioned was interesting, which was that CRT proposes a singular approach. I’ve never heard that from any of my colleagues or from anyone else I know who supports using CRT as a lens. No one I’ve heard has ever said this is the only lens we should look through, and you know, race is the only thing that matters. I’ve also never heard the idea that racial equity is not a realistic goal come out of the mouth of anyone I know, so what the panel is doing here is finding like, these obscure sentences spoken by cherry-picked people to try and suggest that this entire idea of Critical Race Theory, which really shouldn’t be that controversial at all, is somehow this terrible thing. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

This is a tactic I’ve previously only heard described: CRT proponents, when confronted with CRT tenets, deny that the theory teaches them.

Sonia devastatingly parries that every CRT concept she’s mentioned comes directly from CRT leaders, and the idea that racial equity is not a realistic goal is a quote from Derrick Bell.

Meslin asserts that CRT “really shouldn’t be that controversial at all”, but this is begging the question. The entire purpose of the discussion is to establish whether or not CRT is a useful ideology, and he is the one tasked with defending it. He cannot assert a conclusion he has not even made a case for.

Meslin’s final remarks:

I agree with Chris in a sense that I think something like CRT has value, but of course it’s just one tool in a very large toolbox, and it’s not all about race and it’s not all about CRT. I see the anti-CRT movement as doing a lot of fearmongering and cherrypicking, and Bill 16 is a great example. Bill 16 doesn’t even mention Critical Race Theory, it just says that every board should establish a racial equity plan and provide resources and strategies, it’s just common sense stuff.

I have often heard that CRT proponents will deny that a particular thing advances CRT if it doesn’t mention that term specifically, and this is a great example. “Racial equity” and everything contained in Bill 67 (he misstates the number of the bill), are CRT-derived tenets.

He accuses his opponents of “fearmongering” by saying that Bill 67 contains CRT. What are the connotations of the word “fearmongering”? Creating unrealistic fear about a threat [something negative] that doesn’t actually exist.

So CRT is the negative thing that fear is being created about, but Bill 67 doesn’t contain CRT, so its opponents can relax, because the bad thing they’re worried about isn’t real! This is a strange defense from someone who is supposedly pro-CRT. Is CRT a good thing, or isn’t it? The only explanation that makes sense of this tactic is if an agenda is being advanced by stealth.

My last thing I want to say is, I’m hearing a big inconsistency from people who are saying that we need to have viewpoint diversity. Yet a whole bunch of you seem to be saying we need to take this whole theory and make sure it’s not being taught anywhere and not being taught in schools, which to me sure sounds a hell of a lot like cancel culture.

None of the panelists stated that CRT should not be taught anywhere. In fact, some of them stated that they thought CRT had value in some contexts, but should not be taught as the only truth nor teachers forced to teach it.

There is a crucial difference between “cancel culture” and the idea that CRT should not be taught in schools. “Cancelling” someone is a vicious attack against their very person, in which the goal is to deplatform them, get them fired, exclude them from their professional and social circles, and make them unhireable, undateable, and unfriendable. There is a world of difference between that and the idea that a particular ideology should not be taught, whether or not you agree with that position. Those who do not think CRT should be taught in schools are not advocating for destroying the lives of CRT adherents themselves.

---

At the end, I felt I learned a lot more about CRT from its opponents than its proponent. They seemed to be far better educated about it than he. I learned nothing about why Meslin believes CRT is valuable, other than that it seemed to make sense of his childhood experiences. I learned a lot about why he doesn’t like people who oppose CRT, but nothing about why I should believe it. And I certainly wasn’t impressed by his attitude or debate style. It was, however, a very valuable glimpse into the mind of a wokester.